₦airaland Forum

hilli666:
w
What point?? the part where you are a Bloody Twatt? Well at least we agree on something!

Absolutely NOT.

Look at your comment below:

And you are so smart arnt you? Matter of fact you are smater than everone in Nigeria. In short I can only revel in your divine prudence, every morning when I wake up I thank God that I am previleged to live in a time when Huxley existed. We all pay obeisance to Huxley the great intellectual, who has taken time out of his busy schedule to admonish us weak and narrow minded Nigerians.

Did I suggest anywhere in my comments that I expected you to show respect or reverence to me?  What was all the rubbish about?  

I was simply challenging the direction in which most of the posts we going and claiming that if this was representative of Nigeria, the Nigerian have a problem with THINKING.  

And you have just show us that my reservation about the thinking skills of you guys are justified.

hilli666:
And you are so smart arnt you? Matter of fact you are smater than everone in Nigeria. In short I can only revel in your divine prudence, every morning when I wake up I thank God that I am previleged to live in a time when Huxley existed. We all pay obeisance to Huxley the great intellectual, who has taken time out of his busy schedule to admonish us weak and narrow minded Nigerians.

Bloddy Twatt!!!  

Exactly my point!  Thankx

Nayah:
Litmus the most independant doesn't mean completely independant, so you join me
Guys it was a pleasure talk with you I don't hate Nigeria on the contrary, otherwise I wouldn't be in this forum, but just try not affirming some statement you don't really know especially about a foreign country, just search or ask. I don't want any war not because I think Cameroon has fear (not at all) but because I think we are neighbours and espcially AFRICANS. So we should act as real African with, love, share and hospitality, many Nigerians used to live in Cameroon, know and love our culture and consider them as brothers more than anybody in Africa, even though central african countries are also close to us.

So have a nice evening and God bless Cameroon and Nigerian
One love
Eze je vous aime tous parce que vous etes africains

Salut, soeur

Hello,

If the foregoing comments represent a cross-section of Nigerian intellectual analysis, then maybe the entire Nigeria needs to be taken over to teach the Nigerians how to THINK.

You people are a disgrace to humanity, by your very belligerent comments.  What a shame.  Have you got anything in your skulls?

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

More here

Is Yahweh identical to Jesus? Can someone list some of the properties of Yahweh that are identically shared with Jesus? Contrariwise, are there some things or acts that Yahweh can do or did that Jesus cannot do or did not do?

Yes - if your want to marry a virgin, without ever requiring or wanting to divorce her, first rape her. Then give her father some money and the girl becomes yours.

And take this challenge

Take a look at these vids:

1) Part 1

2) Part 2

Is this a day of Muslim prayer, or Hindus prayer, or Sango prayer, or Thor prayer?

What would happen to you and your church if you (and all your co-congregationists) stopped giving your hard-earned money to the pastors at your church?

Are deathbed confession powerful enough to save one from ending up in hell? Imagine someone who has lived all their lives in flagrant disregard of God but confessed, repented and professed faith in Jesus on their deathbed minutes before they died. Would they end up in heaven or in hell?

For instance, if Hitler had converted and professes Jesus as his saviour just before he died, would he be admitted into heaven?

Would all atheists end up in hell for eternity?

Deep Sight:
O, come on huxley, you know very well that there are waves through which such are transmitted.

There are various energies existing in space that makes these possible.

That does not make the energies themselves space.

Can you not see this point?

Look at the earth. Soundwaves permit our hearing. Are those the only waves in existence? Are THE waves themselves space?

Of course not!

No, I don't know. Can you tell me what these waves are generally called? Who is researching them and who has measured them. Come on - reveal all? Some scientific references would be nice!

Deep Sight:
^^^ That is false. I ahve been answering your questions in great detail.

You asked me what Gravity is. Here it is -

Now we are aware that scientists nowadays explain gravity through the curvature of spacetime. I have stated that I have doubts about such explanations and I have shown already in my last post why I have such doubts - because the theory does no correspond with many known phenomena. I gave a list of those phenomena above.

It may interest you to note that there are other theories out there -

And the only reason these alternatives to general relativity are being sought is the fact that there are clear phenomena that do not correspond with general relativity and as such we may have to look for teh explanation for gravity elsewhere.

You asked me why I think spacetime is a hoax, and I already gave five answers -

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

I specifically asked you into what the universe is expanding and you gave a terrible answer which I explanied above could not be the case.

Finally you ask about light bending and I already stated that mass could exert force on light particles. That is my off-the-head proposition - Disprove it. At all events you should know that this does nothing to support the concept of spacetime being "created."

OK, let me put it this way: How is it that a body in space is able to exert a force on another body in space separated by many millions of miles. For instance, how is the sun able to exert a force on the planet saturn? How is the moon able to exert a force on the earth when there is no physical link between them? Is the force transmitted through air?

Deep Sight:
I perceive that the problem is that you presume that the body of scientific knowledge regarding space-time, gravity and general-relativity are picture perfect and absolutely correct.

That is not the case in the least. There are many phenomena that the current assumptions do not corresspond with -

According to Wikipedia, there are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all[22], however this conclusion is disputed[23].

Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

What I may surmise from these is that there is absolutely no need to presume that Einstein’s theories are perfectly spot on in the matter of space-time. I believe there is still a lot to be learnt, as always.

Curvature of light could be caused by the effect of mass exerting force on light particles. This does not in anyway prove that space-time is a material or that it can be bent in the manner conceived or that it was “created” at the time of the big bang.

If you will assert the contrary then please answer my five posers for me.

I POST THEM AGAIN –

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.


So what say ye?

Where did I say that the body of knowledge that we currently have is absolutely 100% correct. I have said no such thing and no proper scientist would say any such nonsense. But that does not mean that we do not have theories that explain many of the observed phenomema we see around us, such as the attraction between massive bodies. I contend that we have a theory that adequately explains it, which you yourself have admitted that it is not a hoax. Why is that theory not a hoax but other are? Refer to my questions again:


1) What is gravity and where does it come from?

2) Why do you think it is not a hoax but space-time is?

3) What accounts for the bending of light in the vicinity of a large object, say another star? Light "normally" travels in a straight line, right. Why is it that in some case, it bends around objects of a certain mass threshold?


PS - Why is it that you never answer any of my questions? Can you try and address the above three questions?

Deep Sight:
That is another deep scientific fallacy. Space cannot be stretched because it is intangible. Prove the contrary if you can.

It only makes sense that if there is a greater distnace between two objects, there will be a difference in the observable light between them, so the red-shift thing means nothing in terms of what you are trying to assert.

I state that it is a fallacy because these are the same scientists who comically talk about bending spacetime to create wormholes.

That is impossible because if spacetime is a material that can be bent in the manner conceived, then that will rip the universe apart and casue the greatest collision and explosion of all cosmic bodies imaginable.

OK, let take a step back and go back to gravity, which you said is not a hoax. What is gravity and where does it come from? Why do you think it is not a hoax but space-time is?

What accounts for the bending of light in the vicinity of a large object, say another star? Light "normally" travels in a straight line, right. Why is it that in some case, it bends around objects of a certain mass threshold?

Deep Sight:
This answer is absolutely contradictory and inconsistent.

There is nothing that can expand into something outside of it and at the same time be the creator of the element outside of it into which it is expanding.

That is like stating that your protruding pot-belly created the air and space around it - in which you live and work - and into which it protrudes.

The second and main reason why it is inconsistent it that the very term MULTIVERSE presupposes other universes existing within the very same space  - thus destroying any idea that the commencement of THIS universe is what created space.

Rather it is obvious that universes may exist in the same space in the same way as planets and other celestial bodies exist in the same space.

It is asserted that space-time was created at the moment of the big-bang or initial expansion.

That is simply illogical and inconceivable because –

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.


5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

No it is not.

Energy.

For now, I shall just focus on my third question (What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?) and you answer "Energy".

Yes, some sort of energy is powering the dispersion of the galaxies from one another. This is generally described in cosmology as Dark Energy. Where are these galaxies moving into and why does the light from these galaxies display a red-shift, which means that the space between them is also stretching rather that the galaxies simply moving across fixed space?

Deep Sight:
Why are you fond of prevaricating when I ask you questions?

I repeat my question - answer it first.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING?

The best answer cosmologist have now is that the universe is expanding into space it is creating at the same time. In fact most cosmologist today are now coming to the view that there is a multiverse or a cyclic universe. The evidence for this is quite strong now, but will be clinch when they manage to get result from the gravitation wave experiments.


Now, answer my question above, which are:

Where is your evidence that space-time is a hoax?


Is gravity also a hoax?



What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

Deep Sight:
I am glad that you have said this.

You have also acceded that no man understands "infinity."

This is why I stated that no man can define for me what a singularity is.

God is Infinite. The God Principle is a principle shrouded in infinity. That is why i stated that grasping it may alter one's sanity.

Space-Time is an illussion. It is a hoax. A scientific Fraud.

INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING. ANSWER ME THIS.

I state that it is expanding into already existing, self-existent and infinite space.

Are you prepared to go mad? Brace yourself.

The very nature of infinity means that it can never be contaned or limited. That will be an oxymoron.

If it can never be contained or limited, then it can NEVER be understood.

Where is your evidence that space-time is a hoax?


Is gravity also a hoax?



What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

On Singularity

To understand "Singularity", you have got to understand the concept of "Infinity", and further that there is not just one type of singularity. Singularity is domain specific - for instance in terms of cosmology, a Black Hole is a singularity, which simply means that the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. That is a blackhole singularity.

But more generally, singularity always entail one or more parameters running into infinity. And as far as our best scientific and analytic knowledge go, we have not yet got the means to fully understand the domain of the infinite. This is what drove Cantor mad. That we do not understand the maths of infinity now does not mean that it shall forever remain incomprehensible to us, far from that.

Deep Sight:
^^^ You are dancing with assumptions. I did warn you when I said -

No where in my post did I state that anything (singularity inclusive) = God.

I stated and I repeat -

That any person who defines for me exactly what a singularity is will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Take up the challenge, son - define for me exactly what a singularity is.

This is important, because when pressed about the origin of the universe or the big bang, most athiests love to simply state - "A singularity."

Kindly justify your eloquence and define that term for me.

What is a singularity?

Simple.

Note, you used the words "perilously close" which I translated as "approximately equal" NOT equals.

Can you explain what you mean by "perilously close" in this context?

Deep Sight:
Sir - I asked Mazaje to define for me exactly what a singularity is. He has absconded from the question - and rather than deflect the issue - since you have waded in, I request that you first define for me exactly what a singularity is.

I have stated and I state again that nobody can define it - and if any person actually does I repeat affirmatively that in that event such a person will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Now note carefully what I have said and distinguish it from the assumptions you have attributed to me: which I did not say.

Without definition the notion of "Singularity", let us first examine your logic, shall we. How could you say that something that cannot be defined is closed to somthing else (God) that is definable (or not definable). Basically, this is what you are saying;


The Undefinable (Singularity) =:= The definable (or maybe undefinable) which is God, where =:= is approximately equal.


Does this make any sense at all?

Yes - how many different gods are there? Is the Hindu god the same as the Sihk god, the same as the Moslem god, the same as the Christian god, the same as the traditional African gods, the same as Zeus, the same as Thor, the same as Wotan, the same as Baal, the same as Sango, etc, etc?

If you are a following of only one of these gods, does that not make you an atheist with respect to the gods that you don't follow?

Yes - Your evidence is below;

1) Inventing Jesus; Part 1

2) Inventing Jesus; Part 2

Lee Strobel hammered here:

Strobel under Fire 1

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 2

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 3

and here:

Strobel Under Fire 4

What did Jesus say about praying in public?

davidylan:
Flat out wrong . . . the bible literarily reads that our earth as we know it today is 6000 yrs old but it does not tell us what existed on the earth BEFORE the creation of man neither does it tell us how long the earth had existed before we hopped along.

1. Question 1 is invalid. The creator of the earth can choose whatever time to create the first living cell at His own prerogative. There is no mathematical equation to figure that out.

2. Again invalid. Your question cannot suppose deliberate creation and evolution at the same time.

In case you have forgotten, this is what the bible actually says:

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


So what did God create on the 1st day? Heaven and earth, light, "darkness", day and night.

And then he went on to create many other things. And on the seventh day, he rested. This suggests six consecutive days of creation, followed by one day of rest.


Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.




Now, are you suggesting that there was more than one episode of creation? And that the other episodes are not documemted in the bible? So when the bible says God created the earth, which was formless and empty, how could you draw from that that there could have been some other "earth" which may have contained other things, when the bible clearly says that the earth God created was initially formless and empty?

davidylan:
pardon me petres007

Actually nowhere in the bible did it claim that the earth is 6000 yrs old. Search the bible, that figure is NOT bandied anywhere. Infact the books of Genesis and Jeremiah make a clear case for a world that was definitely much much older than we think and was clearly inhabited by other organism before the creation of man.

I'm not sure you clearly understood what conclusions the scientists in that video were making. They were not declaring God to be the creator of the earth BECAUSE they had no other evidence for anything else. Actually they reached their conclusions for divine providence BASED on scientific evidence showing the earth CANNOT have appeared by chance and MUST have been the handiwork of some intelligent force and for a particular purpose.

Again you seem not to have watched the same video i did. Firstly the analogy of the iphone is totally wrong. The iphone is itself composed of several stand-alone parts. The cell is the single-smallest unit of life . . . it is the building blocks for every complex organism on earth. One of the scientists makes a salient point . . . if you put acell in a dish containing every condition for its survival . . . that cell thrives. However if you puncture this cell such that its contents leak out into the surrounding liquid, that liquid will still contain EVERY condition conducive for the existence of a cell, it will also contain EVERY component for a cell but it CANNOT on its own generate a new living cell.

The cell (unlike the iphone) isnt evolving into anything new. The same cell that cannot be created will still NOT be created in 2000 yrs of trying.

That is flat out WRONG. The scientist there was explaining the cambrian explosion . . . according to this theory, simple single-celled organisms were around for millions of yrs until all of a sudden you get a huge bunch of highly complex organisms. If (as you claim) cells were evolving until they mutated into complex organisms there SHOULD BE intermediate life forms present in the fossil record. This absence of intermediates is what condemns Darwin's theory of evolution as a farce.

We still wont discover any new answers . . . because there really are none.

No christian with a good grasp of his bible will tell you the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

It takes more faith to believe that the earth appeared by chance than to believe a snake spoke in a garden. Besides the bible records that a SERPENT spoke to eve, NOT a snake as is erroneously claimed.

Respects to you too bro.

Interesting view there. Just a few questions in your applecart, may I?

1) If the earth was a deliberate act of creation as you seem to suggest, how long was it from the creation of the earth to the creation of the first living cell?

2) How long from the first living cells to the first human beings?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Your write-up is contradictory.

This -

- Completley declares that a creator exists.

I demand of you that you define for me exactly what a singularity is.

When you do this, which i do not believe that you can (nor can any scientist) - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Interesting view here - are all singularities God or are there only a special class of singularity that is God?

Allow me to point you to a very commonplace singularity - BLACK HOLES. There are billions and billions of black holes in the universe. Does this mean that there are billions and billions of God?

Granted - nowhere in the bible is it said the world was created 6000 or 10000 years ago.  But is it implied from careful reading of the text that it is about 6000 to 10000 years old, if it is to be understood literally?


The answer is a categorical YES,  YES and YES.   If you read the bible literally, then there is no escaping the implication that the world is about 1000 years old.  Let's start by looking at the genealogy of Jesus given in Luke 3. Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, who is suppose to be the first human being created within the first week of creation.  Below are the forebears of Jesus, all the way back to Adam:

   1. God
   2. Adam
   3. Seth
   4. Enosh
   5. Cainain
   6. Mahalalel
   7. Jared
   8. Enoch
   9. Methuselah
  10. Lamech
  11. Noah
  12. Shem
  13. Arphaxad
  14. Cainan
  15. Shelah
  16. Eber
  17. Peleg
  18. Reu
  19. Serug
  20. Nahor
  21. Terah
  22. Abraham
  23. Isaac
  24. Jacob
  25. Judah
  26. Pharez
  27. Hezron
  28. Ram
  29. Amminadab
  30. Nahshon
  31. Salmon
  32. Boaz
  33. Obed
  34. Jesse
  35. David
  36. Nathan
  37. Mattatha
  38. Menna
  39. Melea
  40. Eliakim
  41. Jonam
  42. Joseph
  43. Judah
  44. Simeon
  45. Levi
  46. Matthat
  47. Jorim
  48. Eliezer
  49. Joshua
  50. Er
  51. Elmadam
  52. Cosam
  53. Addi
  54. Melchi
  55. Neri
  56. Shealtiel
  57. Zerubbabel
  58. Rhesa
  59. Joanan
  60. Joda
  61. Josech
  62. Semein
  63. Mattathias
  64. Mahath
  65. Naggai
  66. Hesli
  67. Nahum
  68. Amos
  69. Mattathias
  70. Joseph
  71. Jannai
  72. Melchi
  73. Levi
  74. Matthat
  75. Eli
  76. Mary & Joseph*
  77. Jesus

From the above info, is it conceivable that one could estimate when Adam most have lived?

Is it intelligence to deliberately incorporate fatal flaws in one's design?

Who knows, as a matter of certainty, that they will go to heaven? Can you tell us how you came to be so absolutely certain that you are destined for heaven?

If you are not sure, but confident that you might end up in heaven, can you give a figure as to your level of confidence? Say, 50%, 70%, 95% confident of going to heaven?

If you had some or all of the power of God for just one day, what substanstive and permanent change would you make to the world that would improve the human condition?

If I had some of the power of God, I would permanently eliminate all harmful viruses, such as the HIV virus?


What would you do?